[Note: Last week, Mark Joseph Stern wrote an article for Slate about how anti-circumcision activists ("Intactivists") are "drowning out reasoned discourse" in the debate. This piece is a rebuttal to that.]

…

I think that the best way to respond to Mark Joseph Stern’s address is to deal mostly with Mark Joseph Stern and barely at all with his address. Not because I think it generally good practice to go around making internet fights personal, but because I have little patience with someone who is pretending to have the objectivity of a cool academic when he actually harbors an intensely vested interest in arriving at a particular conclusion because the stakes are both so high and so intrinsically personal.

I do not know Mark Joseph Stern. But I can likely assume two facts about him, each of which in isolation are reason to be highly confident of his circumcision status; together, the likelihood is even greater. 1) Stern was born in North America when circumcision rates among the general population were at an all time high, and 2) his last name is characteristically Jewish. Given this, it would be highly surprising if Mr. Stern were not circumcised. Why am I telling you this? Because it’s relevant. Am I insinuating that circumcised men are incapable of being impartial on this issue? I don’t have to, the data says it outright. American doctors consistently diverge from their developed world counterparts when it comes to how they interpret circumcision studies, whether having to do with infection statistics, disease transmission rates, pleasure reduction, or any other findings. American doctors lean pro-cutting, to the renewed shock and at times amusement of the global medical community. (The majority of American females are equally compromised, hearing from a young age that the male foreskin is a conduit for dirt and disease, leading them to grow into mothers who readily consent to circumcision of their sons and into doctors who peddle the procedure to the parents of their patients.)

Now certainly in medicine, differences in opinion do occur. One doctor may advise a patient to go ahead and schedule back surgery while another doctor up the street cautions this same patient that the surgery is likely to create more problems than it will solve. But with circumcision, the splintering is clearly along a national divide.

Lets look at incentives Stern (and others) may have for wanting to avoid confronting the realities of the procedure.

Like most circumcised men, Stern probably does not want it to be true that his circumcision means that he is missing out sexually. Or that as he ages, he will likely notice diminishing sensitivity in his glans. Or that profit incentives played a role in the push to remove his erogenous tissue; or that other people altered his sexuality in a permanent way when he was still too young to do anything about it.

But the facts are what they are.

Over 50% of penile nerve endings are removed during a circumcision, including one-hundred percent of the Meissner’s Corpuscles, the unique fine touch nerve receptors found only in fingertips and on the ridged band of the penis.

And it is true that your circumcision means that someone surgically altered your body in a permanent way without first having obtained your consent.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to believe that all of these sacrifices were not in vain, that they bought you some greater good? It would, but we can’t just believe things because they are appealing. We can’t in good conscience marinate in denial when that means asking future generations to pay the price by allowing a harmful practice to continue to play out on their flesh.

We recognize in this country that there is such a concept as “a conflict of interest.” We acknowledge that people’s abilities to be objective in their evaluation of facts is typically impaired by emotions and conflicting loyalties coming into play, and that emotions run high when there are personal stakes.

We make provisions for this in law; we require that a judge recuse himself from a case when the defendant is his next door neighbor. We enforce it in politics, ousting a congressman who awards contracts to a company that has contributed to his campaign. We made these laws because we all grasped at a young age — when the most spastic and uncoordinated kid in Little League got to be pitcher due to an immutable appointment by Coach Dad — that personal longings tend to crowd out and trump objective judgment. It isn’t news that people’s private agendas inform what they see and what they screen out. This is particularly likely to happen in any situation where there is a high cost to admitting to having been wrong.

My suggestion that doctor’s employ denialism around circumcision doesn’t mean that I am charging them with being cruel and inhuman. Quite the opposite; it is acknowledgement that they are oh-so-very-human in their determination not to have to admit to having been wrong. A measure of sympathy belongs with doctors, the majority of whom did indeed set out to do good when they began their training. It is understandable that they may be angry at having been misled by their professors who taught them that proper medicine includes routine circumcision. Today’s physicians happen to belong to the generation that has finally begun to question this practice in serious numbers, and now they are left carrying the bag packed by their predecessors, replete with Gomco clamp and all. It isn’t an enviable position to be in and one can understand why they are on the defensive. No decent person wants to have the realization: “So this irreversible procedure I’ve performed on thousands of patients… turns out that was a bad idea. Oops.” They would rather it be true that circumcision is the prophylaxis and wonder drug to treat and prevent a whole host of ills. Which means that, when reviewing studies about circumcision, American physicians are poised to pounce on any shred of data which could be contorted to justify this surgery that they feel beholden to defend.

It’s incumbent upon us to always remember to ask: Who are the proponents of this practice? Are they capable of being impartial? What might it cost them to admit that they are wrong? Do they have a vested interest in arriving at a particular conclusion?

Speaking of risk assessment, does Stern really think that Americans are the only people who care whether or not a rampant epidemic breaks out in their country and that, by keeping their boys intact, the rest of the world has resigned itself to a fast and furious demise? Is he actually saying that the Australians don’t mind all that much whether or not they all contract HIV? That the Dutch shrug off the prospect of a generation ravaged by cervical cancer with nary a second thought? Does he expect readers to suppose that only America seeks to thrive and prosper and that everyone else has got a death wish?

I might add that even were this most outlandish scenario true, then the other nations are failing miserably in their morbid quests, given that they outperform the USA when it comes to rates of infection and disease transmission.

It seems far more probable that the intact nations have calculated the risks and concluded that the pleasure and sensation which would be sacrificed in exchange for a marginal measure of prevention is nowhere near worth it. As foreskin-havers, and the partners of foreskin-havers, it’s worth listening to them. They’ve done the research that many Americans have ignored or dismissed. And it’s all too easy for us in the United States to never value what most of us have never enjoyed.

The book’s not on sale yet, but Almossawi has put all the contents online under a Creative Commons license (and is taking donations if you care to give anything). The book includes descriptions and examples of logical fallacies next to images of cute animals depicting them, like this one of the “No True Scotsman” argument:

It’s a picture book, so I assume people who tend to use logical fallacies will be drawn to it, yes?

This year, The SPECTRUM, the LGBTQA youth safe-haven I founded in 2006, turns 7 years old! I've done my best to provide hundreds of queer and allied youth with education, recreation and support. Helping them grow into sexually healthy adults is some of the most important work I do!

Bio:

Amber Brown is the Education & Training Manager for Planned Parenthood Keystone. She has over 10 years of teaching experience and holds a degree in Education from Penn State University. When she isn't in the classroom, she likes to crochet ridiculously adorable stuffed animals, watch scary movies, and run around after her two awesome kids.

Job hunters have access to more online resources than ever. Smart job hunters utilize every tool at their disposable, and a few apps out there can offer a leg up for creating, modifying, and personalizing resumes quickly to highlight their most standout skills, maximizing the chances of being hired.

Whatever you do, don’t touch my clitoris
If you ring Satan’s doorbell God can’t ignore this
And no prophylactics when you put it in
’Cause birth control’s for sluts and it’s a sin
I emptied my bowels
And laid out the towels
I’m ready for romance
Now I’m praying to the power that’s the highest
But of all of my holes this one’s the driest
And we can’t procreate if we anally copulate
And God’s okay with sodomy but only if you’re straight

Adam Pascal originated the role of “Roger” in the hit Broadway musical “Rent” and he recently filmed a segment for Chris Johnson‘s multimedia book about atheists and what gives them joy and meaning in life.

In the segment below, Pascal talks about how “No Day But Today” — a message repeated throughout the musical — really takes on special meaning when you don’t believe in the afterlife:

I told you on yesterday that MPMK was staying in the kitchen this week with our posts, but I forgot to give you an update on our upcoming Freezer Cooking eBook. Lots of you have inquired about when Freezy Peasy will be released (so glad you’re as excited as we are by the way!). I’m happy to report that it’s now on sale!

Natalie’s here today sharing tips on how to make mealtime easier after the cooking is through.

Food and drinks all over the floor. Kids’ faces (and bodies and clothes) are a mess. Cups, bowls and spoons strewn everywhere. At least two of them are fighting. Only one of them actually ate something. Mom and Dad just want dinner to be over with… Are you having meal times like these?

I know that part of having kids is embracing the mess, the noise and the chaos. Sometimes it’s just going to be crazy. But I believe that we are responsible as parents to train up our children and discipline them in love, and part of that is to teach them to be respectful and obedient at meal times.

My desire is to truly enjoy the time that we spend at the table together. Why bother? I believe our days and weeks were designed to have peaceful rest periods for a reason – because our human bodies really need to slow down and rest! It’s part of a normal, healthy day.

I also want to encourage slower eating and better chewing so we have the best chance at digesting the nutrients in our food. And let’s not forget the bonding. I’m hoping that a more peaceful atmosphere will encourage quality conversation with my kids and create lasting memories.

There are plenty of other reasons you might desire a more peaceful meal time, those are just a few that come to mind for my family. Maybe you’re thinking, that’s all well and good, but how do I actually take steps toward a more enjoyable meal time?

The first single off of Noah and the Whale’s fourth album has arrived. At this point, the band seems to have mastered their sound. Whimsical, raw, and optimistic, “There Will Come a Time” is most likely exactly what you would expect to hear next from the English outfit. But when it ain’t broke, don’t fix it — this formula continues to work quite well for them. However, as more material from the album begins to surface, it would be great to see Noah and the Whale push the envelope a bit more, and (fingers crossed) maybe even bring back a little bit more of their folkier sound.

Check out the video for “There Will Come a Time” above. It’s actually a trailer for the short film directed by band member Charlie Fink. Their new album Heart of Nowhere is due out May 6.

Despite their ridiculous name, I’m a big fan of Dale Earnhardt Jr. Jr., who put out one of the best debut albums of 2011 and have a really fun live show. Today, the Detroit synth-pop duo released the first single from their new EP, “If You Didn’t See Me (Then You Weren’t on The Dancefloor)” which continues their inclination for sunny harmonies, exhilarating beats and 80’s throwback synths.

think about what they say, think about how to think, pause it, play it, pause it, play it, pause it

In case you missed this sexual slice of a video, let me reiterate the magical powerhouse that is Manchester’s The 1975. I witnessed the live show down at SXSW and it stood out as the week’s top set. None of the weird mellow mood “songs” on their EPs made the cut, just the straight hits. These guys are no fking joke. As if the songwriting wasn’t top-notch enough, add on effortless charisma and laser tight musicianship and we’ve got ourselves a damn fine winner. “Chocolate” is just the latest in a string of tracks I can’t get out of my head. And I heard a new one live that will possible be even better. Just tape down the repeat button.

Spring has officially sprung (according to the calendar at least), and as you’re waiting for the weather to reach more seasonly-appropriate temperatures, linger on the spring-like feelings of warmth, renewal and emerging beauty with our second edition of Spring (Or The Love In Between). Click here to download this mix in its entirety.

14. Beck - Lost CauseI’m tired of fighting, I’m tired of fighting, fighting for a lost cause

15. The Walkmen - The RatWhen I used to go out, I would know everyone that I saw. Now I go out alone if I go out at all

16. The Good Life - Album of the YearAnd I know she loved me once, but those days are done. She used to call me every day from a pay phone on her break for lunch, just to say she can’t wait to come home